Conservative media is good for free speech

I went to college at Ferris State University.  Most of my friends were from Detroit, and were hardcore liberal democrats. When we debated they would use the Detroit Free Press as evidence to support their ideas. They'd say, "See, right there!"  As a conservative, I didn't have this. That's why it was so great when Rush Limbaugh came along.

I grew up in the eighties under Reagan and became aware of the misinformation and lies that the liberal media was putting forth, particularly Reagan economics,, which logically made sense, but also the Soviet Union, Communism, and so forth. They said Reagan's tax cuts were not working, and that all his military spending did was add to the national debt, instead of giving people a reason not to mess with us.

A quote by Rush Limbaugh

You know, I always figured the purpose of building a strong military, a strong nuclear program, and stealth bombers, was so we didn't have to use them. You know, people know we have them so they won't mess with us.

I could never explain that to my friends.  They would just pick up the latest edition of the Free Press and point to their evidence. If I wanted to get evidence I had to go out of my way and go to the library and do some research, which was impossible given that I had all sorts of homework and studying that had to be done. Actually, they didn't need evidence. Sometimes they would just look at each other and laugh when I opposed them. I was backwoods.  I had these outdated, controversial ideas.

When I tried to explain to them that the Iraq War was good, they mocked me. When I tried to explain that Sam Donaldson, Peter Jennings, and Dan Rather were all in the tank for democrats and were trying to make Reagan and Bush look bad, my friends mocked me. "It's the news!" they'd say, laughing. "It's the facts as they happen.  How could you oppose facts?"

Well, I knew it wasn't the facts what I was hearing, but I just learned to keep my mouth shut.  The only vindication I got was that the opposing voices in the media, all their attempts at destroying Reagan and Bush, didn't work, as Reagan won in two landslide elections, and Bush also won in 1988.  So there were obviously many people who were thinking the same as me, only if you watched the media you wouldn't know it.

So I was so thankful when conservative media, beginning with Rush Limbaugh, came along to give me some credibility and not let me feel so isolated anymore.  I do not get most of my ideas from Rush, it's just that he sort of vindicates what I'm thinking as I read the news. Of course now theirs National Review, and even Fox News to some extend, although I think Fox is far from a conservative media outlet.  It does, however, seem to be fair to both sides, actually giving traditional Americans (conservatives) a platform.

Yet there are some who don't like all these voices being heard.  They don't like that the Internet, a.m. radio and books give voices to people with differing opinions on the facts to be heard.  They don't like Rush Limbaugh, and would prefer that he not have a voice.

A good example is yesterday when I read that Mitt Romney was saying that he thought American was a better place before conservative media came along.  He thought America was a better place before Rush Limbaugh came along, because all this did was create a partisan divide where people could just listen to people they agree with all day long, rather than everyone getting all the same facts from the same sources every day.

What makes this so naive is that it sort of feeds into what liberals and democrats have always said about Rush, that he hives people ideas and tells people how to think.  That's not how it is at all.  All he does is make free thinkers like myself feel less isolated in a world surrounded by liberal media.

You see, I didn't think I was getting the facts when I watched Dan Rather.  I didn't agree with the editorials in the Detroit Free Press that my college buddies were quoting from.  Conservative media made me realize that I was not alone in doubting the "facts" doled out by the media and my liberal buddies.

Granted, we did not have many political debates, as we were more interested in studying, doing homework, but mainly in having fun. Still, it's something I think about once in a while.  I simply don't understand why anyone would want to stop voices from being heard.  There's nothing better, in my mind, for free speech than a free Internet.  It allows people to get their news from all sorts of media outlets, both left, right, independent, and so forth. It's simply a great thing.

Further Reading:

• Rush Limbaugh: Debunking the mind numbed robot

Reduce Poverty By Teaching How America Became Great

I recently had an opportunity to sit down with Rush Limbaugh. We discussed why people outside our nation are envious of us and want to bring down our great nation, as opposed to trying to become more like us. We also discussed what needs to be done to increase prosperity around the world. Here are the transcripts.

Me.  Hi Rush.  Long time listener. It's an honor to have this opportunity to talk with you. 

Rush. Thank you, sir. 

Me.  There are a lot of people who, I don't know if they hate America, but they seem to be envious of us. They see how prosperous we are.  But instead of trying to understand how America became so prosperous, they talk bad about America.  They say that we are overly materialistic. They say that we have become prosperous at the expense of other people or other nations. You have people like the pope saying we need to create a larger government to take money from greedy Americans and share it with poor people in America and poor nations around the world. They say that we need to keep our borders open and allow anyone who wants in in. You even have people inside our own country who think this, such as Obama, which explains why he won't do anything about the invasion of immigrants. What do you think?

Rush.  Let's start with the pope. It's almost as if in his mind and in the minds of many other people, in fact, that you have the world, and it is what it is and then there's this one place in the world where it's much, much, much better than anywhere else in the world. It's richer. It has more opportunity. It has more freedom and more liberty. It's vastly more prosperous. The standard of living is way, way higher. It's got all kinds of weapons to protect itself and so forth. It's just better, it's just demonstrably better. 

Me. Uh huh.

Rush. And then the rest of the world is kind of eating the dust of this one really special place. And it's as though nobody ever stops to ask how did this one special place become special? They just assume that it was made that way, or that fate, or maybe in this case God, ordained it. And because there's only one special place in all the world, one place that's so much better, so much more advanced, so much more prosperous, however you want to define and characterize it, this place is so special, but it just happened. It's just the way it is. 

Me.  Exactly.

Rush.  And, as such, everybody else in the world is entitled to go there, simply because it exists. Everybody's entitled to go there, and anybody who wants to go there should be permitted to go there. And there ought not be any complaining about it, because in this special place, this one place that is far and away better than anywhere else on earth, everybody that's there was once from someplace else.

So everybody that's there had to go there to get there. So why should people going there to get there today not be permitted when everybody in the past was? No, I'm talking about the United States of America, not the Vatican. One special place, United States of America. It's far and away superior to every other place on earth, in terms of lifestyles, liberty, and freedom. In terms of the human condition, there's no place like it. 

Me. Exactly. 

Rush.  It's so special, everybody wants to go there. And there's not a thought given to how it got special. It's just assumed it was made that way, I guess. It's just assumed that it's just there. And it's also assumed that it's always going to be there. Call it the golden goose or whatever you want but everybody saying that we have no right to keep anybody out because nobody kept us out, we all had to get here. Nobody here now actually started here. Of course, that's no longer true.

But the whole construct of this is that, yeah, this is a special place, but not because of anything the people here did to make it special. It just happens to be. And the people who were here are here simply by winning life's lottery. It's all fate; it's all luck. And if anybody else in the world wants to come to this one special place, then nobody has the right to tell them they can't because we are all immigrants.

And nobody ever stops to ask in this debate, nobody ever stops to consider how did it get special? Because it wasn't made that way. We didn't just wake up one day and here is the United States of America, and it is the gem, the shining city on the hill, however you want to describe it, it had to be built. It was not there. But from the moment it began to be built, isn't it interesting that everybody in the world who heard about it wanted to go there?

Me.  It is.

Rush.  Maybe I should change the tense. Everybody who heard about it wanted to come here. And now the people who lead this special place don't seem to have any appreciation for how it became special. In fact, if they have anything, it's guilt over how it became special. And so they either want to open the borders and let anybody in because it's not fair that we are here and we're able to get here and others who want to come here are not, it just isn't fair.

So this special place in the world, the United States of America, it just happened. It just is. And it's our responsibility, as those who are lucky and fortunate enough, to happen to have been born here. It is incumbent upon us to share that same luck and good fortune with everybody else. Otherwise we are mean, selfish, polarized, partisan, extremist, racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, whatever. 

Me.  And Greedy. 

Rush.  So it seems even from the pope, immigrants, anybody who doesn't live here, has an automatic right to come here just because there's no other place like it on earth. And what is never discussed is how it got so special. How did it happen? Why is it so prosperous? Why is it so free?

See, the correct thing to do would be to answer those questions and spread those answers all over the world. And that's what, to me, if I had the ability to command the attention of the peoples of the world, that's what I would tell them. I certainly wouldn't stand for policies that are gonna end up destroying this special place, because once this special place is destroyed and is no longer special, then where is everybody gonna go?

Me.  So, basically, rather than look at America as the model and trying to reproduce it, rather it seems everyone wants to tear it down.  I think it points to the root of the problem we have in this culture and around the world. There's envy and there's a begrudgingness. Envy is something that can be a positive because I can be envious or you can be envious of someone's possessions and use that as a positive to try to strive to achieve whatever you need to, to get those possessions in terms of a job, education, whatever it is. And neighbors can be envious of what the other person has yet still be happy for what they have and the relationship will endure. However the problem we have is a begrudgingness. People see what other people have and they don't want them to have it. And if neighbors have a begrudging feeling towards their friends' possessions, eventually it's gonna eat away and destroy the relationship and they're gonna look at ways to try to take away what their friends have.

Rush.  There's no question, that happens in neighborhoods, I mean, that happens among friends. I mean, you're right, that's a natural human emotion. That's called jealousy. That's called covetousness. If you covet what somebody else has.

Me.  Right. And that's why I think the problem is people are so busy worrying what other people have and looking for ways of taking it away from them, they don't appreciate the things they have, and people can really work on not looking to take away what everyone else has, you know, look at it as a positive. I'd much rather be in a country where the median income was maybe a hundred thousand dollars because it tells me, okay, I have a chance of getting that median income, rather than living in a country where no one has anything so I can't be jealous of someone's fancy cars.

Rush.  Exactly. But let me refocus the question, because I was not speaking per se. I'm glad you called to enable me to make this clarification. When I asked the question when others around the world look at the US, why don't they seek to emulate it and spread that specialness all over the world rather than everybody trying to get here. You're right, there's someone to tear it down. But the answer to the question, "Who wants to tear it down?" I'm asking about other leaders, powerful people, people who have the ability to lead movements that would emulate the United States around the world or Americans who would try to proselytize about the American way of life.

We've had those. And they've been called renegades and conquerors and imperialists and so forth. But the real reason is that most of the world's leaders are tyrants. That's another reason that we are special and why we are so hell-bent opposed and frightened of tyrants. We don't want dictators, which is what most people live under. Most people were born to tyranny and bondage and dictatorship, and most, to this day, are still subject to it in one way or another, or in many ways. Those people, the tyran... Do you think Fidel Castro wants his people to be free? Do you think Raul Castro wants his people to be free? Do you think Stalin, old Joe, wanted his people to be free, or Lenin? Do you think Hitler wanted his people to be free? How about the ChiComs? Do you really think they want their people to be free? 

Me. No. 

Rush.  No. They want them to be controlled. 

The leaders in these tyrannies and dictatorships do very well economically. They are literal thieves. They plunder and steal the national wealth of the countries they lead, a la the Castros, a la the Soviet leaders. Look at the oligarchs even today there, Putin and his buddies. The thing that stands in the way of that is a free people and a runway economy. A growing economy with prosperity for all. That's, again, what explains, illustrates, defines the specialness or uniqueness of the United States, and it really is a rarity. 

Me.  Most people want to make their nations like ours, but their leaders don't want that. So most people around the world continue to have their natural rights denied. 

Rush.  My question was all of these leaders that I'm talking about, these tyrants and dictators, if you listen to them, what are the names of their countries? The People's Republic of whatever. The people don't have a say in anything in these countries. The leaders who claim to be for the little guy, who claim to care about the oppressed, who claim they're gonna get even with the rich, claim they're gonna get even with those who have their jackbooted thugs on the necks of the little guy, don't mean it.

If they did, they would be trying to emulate the United States, and they would attempt to seek the stature and credit one would attain from founding, establishing, leading such a nation, such a prosperous nation. But that's not who these people are. They're dictators. They're tyrants. They rule by the use of force and intimidation and imprisonment. And that is the story for most of the people in the world. And in light of that fact, it infuriates me even more when I have to listen to people both in this country and visitors to this country blame us for the problems in the world. 

Me.  And they do try to blame us.  They blame us for all the poverty of the world, such as the pope is saying nearly every day; that we need to spread the wealth rather than create it. 

Rush.  It really steams me. It really ticks me off when they start going down this road of climate change and how we're destroying the world and we are destroying the planet. I can't tell you, I get so insulted, I get so angry when I hear this. The dictators, and many others who seek to run and rule countries, do not want a free people.

Me. So if these dictators truly wanted to help people. If the pope truly wanted to help the poor, what is it that he ought to be preaching. What is it that dictators need to be doing to truly create wealth and benefit the people of theire countries.?

Rush.  You cannot distribute wealth or redistribute it unless what happens first? 

Me.  It has to be created. 

Rush. Sure, the U.S. is going to give 350 million, governmentally, and that's probably not the last figure. Privately, U.S. citizens are going to donate even more, probably double that amount before it's all said and done. Where does this money come from?

Me.  Capitalism.  

Rush.  So the real point of this, to me, as a great economic exercise, is to note that the real important thing that makes all this possible is the creation of wealth. Many of our nation's teachers also don't realize why poverty in developing countries is declining at such a rapid rate." It's not because of the redistribution of wealth. It's because of the redistribution of resources and the redistribution of capitalism, something I have long advocated on this program. We don't need any more wealth redistribution. We need a more widespread distribution of capitalism, and it's happening.

Me.  Right.

Rush. I have an interesting story that cleared yesterday from, of all places, the San Francisco Chronicle, and it is a piece by Jim Klauder, who is a vice president for the Foundation for Teaching Economics, which is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving economic understanding amongst the peoples of the world, and listen to some of this. Here's the headline to the story: "Ignorance Shrouds Capitalism's Profound Impact on Reducing Poverty ? It should come as heartening news that 2004 was one of the most prosperous years in history. Not because the U.S. economy grew by a solid 4.3%, but because developing countries experienced an explosive 6.1% economic growth. According to a recent study by the World Bank, 2004's growth reflected 'an expansion without precedent over the past 30 years.' Equally encouraging, the report notes that 'the rapid growth of developing economies ... has produced a spectacular, if not historic, fall in poverty.'

Me.   So why don't teachers teach this? Why is it that our kids don't learn that it's capitalism that creates wealth?

Rush.  They have to be taught themselves that capitalism is good for the poor because they think it's bad. They think capitalism is bad. It's like the left's definition of trickle-down economics. The left defines trickle-down economics as the rich leaving their homes, going to the park, robbing the homeless of what they have, and getting even richer. I know it makes no sense, but that's how they argue it. They argue that rich people become rich because they steal from the poor or they deprive the poor of their "fair share" or what have you. It's bogus. It's outrageous. It's stupid.

Me. So what should teachers be teaching?

Rush.  The poor get out of poverty by virtue of capitalism and opportunity: the creation of wealth.  This culture, if spread to the rest of the world, would be the greatest thing that could happen for the people of the rest of the world

Me.  We are running out of time. Do you have any concluding words. 

Rush.  Well, if they (the left, dictators) really cared about the little guy, if they really cared about the little guy, and want the little guy to have an improved life, more contentment, more happiness, then the United States is what you would emulate. You certainly wouldn't tear it down. So it must not be true when they tell us what they really want is to help and assist and elevate the little guy, 'cause they don't elevate anybody. The people I'm talking about try to make things fair by punishing and penalizing people at the top. They seek equality and fairness by reaching for the lowest common denominator they can find. Equally shared misery seems to be what their utopia is. 

Me.  If you could influence all the people of the world...

Rush. So if I had the good fortune of having the ability to influence people all over the world every time I spoke, I would do my best to make sure people understood why the United States of America is special, and then I would suggest that everybody who wants to come here, "I don't blame you, fine and dandy, there's a legal mechanism for this. We're not denying people the right to come to our country. There's a legal way to do it." That's another thing people forget, including the pope.  We're not talking about being anti-immigrant. We're talking about obeying the law. The law exists for lots of reasons. In this case, the law exists to maintain the integrity of this special place. We allow immigrants here, happily so.

Me.  Right.

Rush.  You have this special place, you want it to remain special, you better find out why it became special. And then after that, as I say, if I had the ability to influence people all over the world just by speaking or writing, one of my objectives would be to find out how this special place became special and then tell everybody. "If you want what happens in the US, it can happen where you are, too. This is how." And I'm not talking about replicating our history with wars and this kind of thing. I'm talking about economic systems, human rights systems, everything that is combined to make this place special. This is no means the only place that can be special. Isn't it odd that it's the only place that is? And isn't it even further intriguing, so many people want to blow it up. Why? Obviously it's a threat. There hasn't been a military force like the United States of America in the history of the world.

Me.  Thanks, Rush, for taking time from your busy schedule for this interview. I could listen to your wisdom all day long.

Rush.  Thank you. 

Further reading:

• Rush Limbaugh: Our freedom threatens the world's tyrants
• Rush Limbaugh: How liberalism advances
• Rush Limbaugh: Redistribute capitalism, not wealth

Bipartisanship is bad, partisanship is good, believe it or not

There's people who say things like "I wish politicians would just get along," or, "they need to work together and compromise."  Yet we may be better off when they don't.

Allow me to explain.  What if you believe people are smart and are better off when left to their own devices.  Yet you have republicans and democrats in office who both think they know what's best for you, and get together and pass laws that take away your personal liberties, your right to decide for yourself.

Do you still think bipartisanship is good?

What we really need is people who fight for our liberties, regardless who it is. We need people who defend the constitution, regardless of who it is.  We need people who push forward sound economic policies, regardless of who it is.  We need people who will protect our private property, regardless of who it is.  We need people who will protect our freedom of speech, regardless of who it is.  We need people in office who will oppose an increase in the size and scope of government, regardless of who it is.

If you have republicans and democrats in office who oppose any of this, then it is best that they don't get along.  It is better to be the party of no, and to do nothing, than to do something stupid.  It's better to do nothing than to do something that will make our lives worse.  It's better to do nothing than make laws that are risky and unproven, such as Obamacare.  It's better to do nothing than make laws that will take away our personal liberties at the expense of some idealistic Utopian dream.

For the past 100 years this is the type of system we have had.  Ever since the election of 1912, where you had a progressive democrat in Woodrow Wilson, and an even more progressive republican in Teddy Roosevelt running for President of the U.S., both parties have become victim to progressive ideals that have undermined the principles of personal liberty and private property.  It has not been done by the democratic party alone, but both parties. The reason these bad policies have passed was with bipartisan support.

Sure the two parties argue over issues, but, too often, when it comes to increasing the powers of the president, increasing government programs that give rich people and corporations more of a reason to try to gain favor over a rising governmental influence, and running up the deficit, both parties are alike.  Both parties are guilty of ignoring the constitution to pass laws they think will make people like them enough to gain votes come election time, instead of protecting liberties.  Excuse the idiom, but the two parties seem more concerned with currying favor rather than protecting liberties we worked so hard to get.

It is also for this reason that I tell my friends that it is not a good idea to "just give him a chance."  That's what one of my friends said about Obama, that "he is our president, we should give him a chance."  Why?  Why would I do that when every thing he stands for is the opposite of the values and principles I support.  That's why it's okay when people like Rush Limbaugh say things like "I hope he fails."

It's better to have a partisan divide as opposed to crossing the aisle to create programs that work to the detriment of the greatest nation the world has ever seen and will ever see.

As Ron Paul said in his 2011 book "Liberty Defined:

We have had way too much bipartisanship that promotes an agenda that has ignored constitutional restraints and free market principles... So-called moderate politicians who compromise and seek bipartisanship are the most dangerous among the entire crew in Washington. Compromise is too often synonymous with 'selling out,' but is sounds a lot better. Honest politicians who state that their goal is total socialized medicine (or education, etc.) are met with a greater resistance; while people who favor the same thing but sell it as moderate bipartisanship slip by unnoticed.  They are the ones who destroy our liberties incrementally, in the name of compromise and civility

Paul added:

Moderates are somehow convinced that they are the saviors of the country, rescuing us all from the effects of philosophical differences.  In fact, philosophical differences are healthy because they lead to the clarification of principles.  Genuine progress is going to require more confrontation, partisanship, and serius and honest discussion of the truth about government, the economy, and every sector of American life.  It also needs politicians who can hold strong to their beliefs and do not compromise their core values.  How sad a state we are in when it seems like such a stretch to expect that from a politician!  We need to bring back some understnding of the idea of liberty and what it means.  Bipartisanship will not help that process along, mainly because there are so few things on which the two parties agree that would be good for the country. 

Bottom line: Bipartisanship and Compromise can be good, as we learned when the Constitution was signed into law, but not when it comes at the expense of personal liberties.   Partisanship may look ugly, yet at times it can be the best defense against political assaults on personal liberties. Bipartisanship that advances constitutional restraints and free market principles is what is needed to return this nation back to greatness.

Muslim Caliphate forming in middle east

There was a part of me that wondered back in the run up to the War in Iraq that it might be better to leave Saddam alone in Iraq.  I thought that because it might be better for the U.S. for the Muslim Shites in Iraq to battle the Sunni in Iran.

As I look back I think I was right.  It was better when they were blowing each other up, and there was no risk that, if one one, there would be a Muslim Caliphate that might try to take over the world and force everyone to become Muslim.

The democracy created by the Bush administration was nice, so long as we continued a presence in Iraq.  But then along came Obama, who figured the rest of the world saw us as occupiers, or bullies, in Iraq.  So he tole them when we were going to pull out and he did.

So then you had conservatives warn Obama that if he does this that the terrorists, the Sunni, are just going to wait until after the U.S. is out of Iraq before they start terrorizing.  Now we have an all out Civil War in Iraq, just as expected.  But this time, Iran is helping out.  The goal of the Muslim nation is to form a caliphate, and this is exactly what might form should Iran take over Iraq.

Of course a while back we had a regime change in Egypt and everyone in the media saw this as a good thing.  Only problem was that a democracy doesn't mean the people will vote in people who support America.  In fact, just the opposite: they voted for the Muslim Brotherhood, a Muslim terrorist group, to lead them.

The purpose of the regime change, we now may presume, had nothing to do with creating a democracy, as the media proclaimed.  It had to do with creating a Muslim Caliphate.  It was a prediction made by Glenn Beck, and he warned about it way back in February of 2011.

So now Obama says that there is no military solution in Iraq, but proclaims to be sending 300 military advisers who are, he said, not going to take sides. He said:

We're prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisors, up to 300, to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces going forward. The United States will not pursue military options that support one sect inside of Iraq at the expense of another. There's no military solution inside of Iraq, certainly not one that is led by the United States.

Since the Sunni are on the march and headed for a takeover of Baghdad, and since Iraq has a weak military, chances are pretty good if the U.S., the most powerful military in the world, doesn't take sides, that pretty much means Obama is supporting regime change in Iraq, and that he supports the formation of a Muslim Caliphate.

This should not come as a surprise, and Obama's history prior to becoming president, a history the media refused to discuss, tagged him as a radical Muslim supporter. Many conservative and libertarian voices chanted that there is evidence Obama doesn't even like the United States.

It's a shame that we should be at this position when you have people saying: "How did we get here."  This is especially true when we know that we were warned well in advance this was going to happen.  People didn't like to hear the truth: that certain Muslims were going to try to create a Muslim Caliphate, or Muslim State, ruled by Sharia law.

Chris Matthews, to take one example, called the idea "Loony Toons."

They didn't want to hear it because they didn't think it could happen. They didn't want to, as Beck recently said to Megyn Kelly on Fox, see the darkness that could happen.  They saw terrorists groups like the Muslim Brotherhood as friends, as so they didn't want to believe they would try to do this.

So people didn't see the writing on the wall.  They didn't listen to Muslims who said point blank: "We want to destroy Christians and Americans and Europeans and Israelites.  We will not settle until everyone is converted to Muslim or is dead."

They turned a blind eye to it just like the world did when Chamberlain warned us what Hitler was up to, and they turned a blind eye when there were warnings what might happen on 9-11.

Many people in the media, many of the same folks who thought Beck's idea was "Loony Toons" are now surprised that this is happening, or at least the seeds of a Muslim State are being planted in the Middle East.  They are taken aback by it, when they should't be.

Recently Beck spoke with Megyn Kelly on Fox and said he is not happy his prediction came true.  He said, "If we don't take steps right now, I see something far worse than a caliphate coming our way."

He continued:  "If it is a caliphate, it's going to be a civil war in the midle east, and we should be no where near it.  Unfortunately, what's going to draw us in is oil."

For this reason, he said, we should make ourselves energy independent, and soon. We should build up our own oil reserves.  He said we need to stop worrying about EPA concerns about coal because if we let that stand in our way we are going to be drawn into this civil war, and there will be massive American bloodshed if that does happen.

Kelly said that on June 10, 2014, the New York Times printed: "The group that's building a caliphate."  So even the New York Times is now agreeing with Glenn Beck's Caliphate theory, which, by the way, is no longer appears to be a theory but a fact.

You can call me a doom and gloomer all day, he said.

Three friends are sitting around talking politics.  The third one says, "All you guys do is sit around and criticize Obama all day.  You need to give him a chance.  You are doom and gloomers."

The second one says, "So, are you saying we have to agree with him just because he is the President."

The third one says, "I think we need to give him a chance."

The second one says, "So you're saying that even if we know who he is and what he stands for, and it's the opposite of what we stand for, that we still have to support him?"

The third one says, "After all, he is OUR president."

"So you're saying we can't think for ourselves just because Obama is President.  Are you saying we have to compromise our own beliefs because our President lost.  Are you saying we have to be sheep. "

The first tone says, "I think his vision for this nation is scary, and, therefore, I hope he fails.  You can call me a doom and gloomer all day if you want."